Disbarment for Falsifying Documents and Violating Notarial Duties

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but one invested with substantive public interest. In Prospero v. Atty. Delos Santos (A.C. No. 11583, December 3, 2019), the Court demonstrated this principle's gravity by disbarring a lawyer who falsified documents and notarized deeds purportedly signed by a woman who had been dead for 25 years. The case serves as a stern warning to lawyers about the severe consequences of betraying the public trust reposed in the notarial office.

The Facts of the Case

Complainants Pilar Prospero and Clarinda Castillo filed a disbarment complaint against Attys. Joaquin Delos Santos and Roberto San Jose for gross professional misconduct, deceit, and malpractice. The case stemmed from a fraudulent scheme involving a parcel of land in Cabuyao, Laguna, owned by the late Fermina Prospero.

In 2007, Atty. Delos Santos, introduced as a high-ranking municipal official, gained the trust of 88-year-old Pilar. He convinced her to execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to sell her 10,000-square-meter share of the property. Unbeknownst to Pilar, the SPA also covered the 10,384-square-meter portion bequeathed to her by Fermina.

Atty. Delos Santos then falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 20, 2008, counterfeiting the signatures of both Pilar and Fermina. He notarized the document as if the deceased Fermina personally appeared before him. He even falsified a second deed and secured a new Transfer Certificate of Title in Pilar's name without her knowledge.

The fraud continued when Atty. Delos Santos, acting as attorney-in-fact, sold the property to Hauskon Housing and Construction Products Corporation. The deed was notarized by Atty. San Jose, Hauskon's in-house counsel. Atty. Delos Santos later falsified yet another deed to facilitate the transfer of title to Hauskon.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the respondents should be disbarred for falsifying documents and violating their notarial duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Delos Santos but dismissed the case against Atty. San Jose.

Against Atty. Delos Santos. The Court found the evidence of fraud overwhelming. The most glaring infraction was notarizing documents supposedly executed by Fermina, who died on May 8, 1983—25 years before the deeds were dated. Citing Fabay v. Atty. Resuena (779 Phil. 151 [2016]), the Court stressed that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears to attest to its contents. Notarizing documents for deceased persons is a deplorable act that warrants disbarment.

The Court also noted that Atty. Delos Santos entered both falsified deeds under the same notarial entry—"Doc. No. 140, Page No. 28, Book No. XXXIV, Series of 2008"—which is impossible under notarial practice. Worse, the Clerk of Court certified that the document actually entered under that number was an unrelated instrument. The checks issued as payment for the property were all made payable to Atty. Delos Santos, further exposing his fraudulent intent.

Atty. Delos Santos' defenses. His excuses for failing to file his Answer—flu, bronchitis, a bicycle accident—were unsubstantiated. His belated claim that he merely helped Pilar "out of the goodness of his heart" was untenable given the overwhelming evidence against him.

Against Atty. San Jose. The Court found no sufficient basis to disbar him. He had reasonable ground to believe the SPA in favor of Atty. Delos Santos was valid and in force, as there was no showing that Pilar had revoked it. His good faith in notarizing the deed was apparent.

The Importance of Notarial Duties

The Court emphasized that notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. When a lawyer violates these duties, the damage extends beyond the directly affected parties—it makes a mockery of the notarial office and degrades the function of notarization.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a sacred duty. A lawyer who notarizes documents without the personal appearance of the affiant—especially for deceased persons—commits gross misconduct warranting disbarment.
• Falsifying documents is inexcusable. Counterfeiting signatures and fabricating deeds violate the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Good faith protects notaries. A notary who acts in good faith and with reasonable grounds to believe a document is valid may avoid liability, as seen with Atty. San Jose.
• Procedural excuses carry little weight. Unsubstantiated excuses for failing to answer a disbarment complaint will not save a lawyer from liability.
• The penalty is severe. Disbarment includes striking the lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.